Biological integration and density

From Lukasgirtanner
Jump to: navigation, search

Alternative titles

  • biological integration
  • biological integration and mathematics
  • integration of animals species
  • integration of all species/lifeforms
  • ultimate integration
  • gradual integration
  • ultimate integration
  • biological integration
  • sustainability means increasing integration
  • increasing integration for sustainability
  • (to which degree) does mathematization justify biological integration?
  • what about individuals and interconnectedness?
  • an the implications for the type of stuff? (wouldn't that be interesting too to know? - but that is a topic, not for this page here, this means having to wait until I have begun there too)
  • the ultimate lifeform?
  • the ultimate entity?
  • and should there be a question mark at the end?
  • putting "real world sustainability" at the beginning?
  • putting "compromise with reality" at the beginning?
  • putting both at the beginning?
  • which of these title proposals is the best proposal? just making a provisional title? the problem of the title is that the topic is huge and real-world (compared to mathematics) and it is not clear if the emphasis of the title must be on the beginning or the end of the process.
  • will this page be/become an ideological page and/or a "necessary" page in terms of sustainability?


Shouldn't the species homo sapiens become smaller and more dense also in order to no longer compete with other (especially but not only the large) animals and mammals? Wouldn't the intelligence of a human in the body and with the neural architecture of an octopus or ant at the size of a mouse and ultimately ant and even smaller be the future? And the flying ability of a bird, bat, fly and dragonfly also being included? And what kind of UTSARA implications might such a vision or process imply?

  • Shouldn't (environmental) sustainability be the key issue in the engineering process, especially (but not only) when integrating flying ability? The individual animal(s) (species) are environmentally sustainable, aren't they? But what about the new hybrid entities? Are the new hybrid (primarily) biological entities environmentally sustainable in at least the same degree as the individual animal(s) (species)? For example, shouldn't it be strictly ("constantly"?, see also below) avoided to just create another generation of in some way loud and polluting airborne "vehicles"?
  • And how might they generally affect or interact with the environment? What about the ability of reproduction, how should it be restricted or regulated and if there is reproduction, how and with what kind of entities?
  • And how to strictly ensure that every step in the integration process is done with individuals fully voluntarily participating? And how or to which extent would such increasingly integrated (primarily) biological hybrid entities be interconnected with other entities?
  • What about strictly (instead of just constantly or "constantly"?) ensuring that mathematization is the ultimate goal? In terms of UTSARA, wouldn't this be the most significant and also important challenge?

To which extent would these entities be purely or mainly biological and/or "technological"? For example, in terms of voice, producing natural sounds by a human or animal voice in a biologically increasingly sophisticated way or just a technically increasingly sophisticated loudspeaker system?

What does the content of this page here mean for the learning of a "subject" like "biology". Should/Might subjects like "biology", "chemistry" or "biochemistry" be added to the "curriculum" in a learning environment and if yes, why and to which extent? Do such subjects exist from a purely mathematical viewpoint and if yes, to which extent? Isn't every non-mathematical science ultimately purely mathematical? and what about physics and (electrical) engineering? And who would/might focus on learning such life science "subjects"?

More content

The following section was just moved from the "egg seller" page, I might have to partially rewrite/change/readjust it: "humans becoming partially birds too respectively integrating the properties and characteristics of birds (lightweight and still strong body and bones, flying ability both in terms of body configuration and behavior) without losing their amazing mammalian, primate and homo sapiens qualities/abilities? and what about all other animals, lifeforms and even non-life forms and the integration of their qualities and abilities into transhumanist entities? and what about integration of mathematics? shouldn't it be integration into/to mathematics? where is the border of direction of integrating of and integrating into/to? integrating the universe into transhumanists? but integrating mathematics into transhumanists? how ridiculous is the previous sentence? but the sentence before? first integrate everything into oneself and only then finally one has to integrate oneself into mathematics because the last step has to go in the other direction? (maybe this point here has become so long that it needs a new page) but on the other hand, are directions important in mathematics? does mathematics ultimately need "directional" considerations? a linear algebra issue or a more complex issue?" And now some keywords that were originally in "alternative title" section of this page here: "two-fold integration (first into ->entities<- and then the entities into-> mathematics)?" and "three-fold integration (first into ->entities<-, then mixed into <->universe<-> and ultimately into-> mathematics)?"

What about the picture "young family" found on Wikipedia with a hybrid entity between homo sapiens and pig mother breastfeeding babies that look like a hybrid of homo sapiens and a pig? a good idea? just a hybrid between a human and a pig?

and what about birds and/or bats? wouldn't they be more useful in terms of flying ability and being able to relinquish the use of airplanes and helicopters? and what about fish and other marine animals? and as far as other terrestrial animals are concerned - what about mice? and what about small and somehow really efficient and "dense" animals like ants (mainly terrestrial and sometimes flying) or flies (flying)? which animals to integrate? and what about truly unique and at the same time astonishingly intelligent species like octopuses? how would/might such a hybrid biological (transhumanist) entity ultimately look like from the outside and how would its general (inner) configuration be?

to which extent would the (ultimate) hybrid lifeform (still) be based on natural lifeforms from Earth? and to which extent would they be artificially evolved by integrating partially or totally newly and uniquely abilities and properties into a hybrid lifeform?

Might a lifeform in the intermediate future look like that? thirty-two (0x20) percent human (without losing any properties, so actually sixty-four(0x40)-eighty(0x50) percent human, depending on interpretation which overall properties are specifically human or not), sixteen (0x10) percent octopus, four (0x4) percent mouse, four (0x4) percent rat, four (0x4) percent dog, four (0x4) percent cat, four (0x4) percent bat, sixteen (0x10) percent all birds, eight (0x8) percent dolphins and sixteen (0x10) percent several species of fish and the remaining percentage might be entities with names like Ramir2.b.3.e? Or might such percentage for particular animal species be too erratic and wouldn't much more diverse species be included too which would mean that apart from the homo sapiens which would still have a significant percentage, a significantly larger amount of different animals species would be integrated and every animal species amounting to no more than maybe to a half a percent? But wouldn't such a configuration only be valid for the short term since other animals species and even more artificial (nowhere found) extensions might be included too? For example even more in the future integrating extensions like Wivixno1.3.a.4 or Nugor9.1b.3f and dozens of other extensions that might comprise all in all maybe forty-eight (0x40) percent?

But to return more closely to now: How would the percentages would vary in terms of brain or body? for example as far as singing abilities are concerned: how much of hybrid singing or vocal sounds production ability would be human, and how much would be bird, bat, mouse and rat (mainly ultrasound), parrot, dog, cat, pig, goat, sheep, cow, frog, cricket, ...? Or would that only partially matter since technologies from purely conventional technologies like in the case of voice production conventional, advanced loudspeakers would be integrated? How much of the body would be human, bird, bat, fly, octopus? What about the percentage of the neural system? How much would be human, octopus, ant, fly, and so on...?

and what about mathematics in all this process? just a distant, postponed goal? to which degree is biological improvement necessary as a compromise with reality instead of just steering towards mathematics directly? and what might biological improvement mean? integration of various properties and abilities of various (all?) species? but ultimately, wouldn't any ability and even every body configuration have to be fully and unchanged being integrated? and what about mathematics? maybe here, mathematics is definitely important because it is already hardly possible to integrate animals as diverse as human, octopus, fish, fly and jellyfish into one animal, let alone a plant, fungus, bacterium, virus and protein? and all individuals at the same time, all individuals from all species? would that be collectivism? or individualism? is it just an interconnection of individuals? but then it is not integration? at least when integrating a few species (for example humans, bats, birds, octopuses, flies and ants: HBBOFA), it would still be some kind of integration? and what about non-living objects? the wrong approach? the right approach only to a certain extent, maybe integrating the most useful animals and then proceed more directly to mathematics? to which degree is biological improvement necessary in order to ultimately reach mathematization? is it just a sustainability issue? and how (in which ways) does mathematics assist in this biological improvement process?

And how would mathematics - doesn't only mathematics ultimately count? (apart from maybe some side remarks reservations on the philosophy of mathematics page) - be ultimately included since biological integration and the struggle for biological density would only be a short-term and maybe medium-term compromise with reality where such biological considerations still matter? And what might the compromise with reality be in the case of biological integration and density? to make the species homo sapiens make more sustainable, isn't it? but what ultimately counts is mathematics, doesn't it? so, wouldn't the question actually be: how sustainable has the species homo sapiens have to become in terms of neural network, body and locomotion ability configurations in order to ensure that mathematization is still possible?

And what exactly would be density as biological term or concept? And what would be the ultimate relation between biological density and mathematics? What about the term "mathematical density"? Or maybe should better the term "the (implication of) (ultimate) density of mathematics" be used or considered?

And wouldn't such a biological integration and density process imply some kind of change or alteration of the view or expectation of transhumanist entities that many people of nowadays have? therefore, not a transhumanist beauty with beautifully looking skin (see )? but a real integration of (primarily) inner qualities of animals, lifeforms and other entities from the universe (and ultimately mathematics)?

The fundamental question is to which degree nature (evolution) has not already reached the maximum possible density in every species (apart from being overweight in humans or animals) and if it is in principle possible to extend abilities by densifying organisms (instead of extending them by adding functions that make them larger/heavier).

"Integratioon" und "Dichti" nachäm 2011/11b7

Nachäm d'Eraignis vom lönd - diä Siitä neui/nöi beuurtailä: s'wichtigschtä wär warschinli, dass d'Fäikait Seensucht und L.... (d.h. vor alläm L.....schmärz) z'gschpürä, "vädichtäd" würdi (d.h. zeersch vor alläm ämal gwäärlaischtäd). Eventuell chönntäd au telepatischi (Gedankäüberträägig) Fäikaitä däzue choo, diä wäräd abär nur würkli schöön, wänn d'Seensucht und d'Liä.. Schritt haltä würdäd, wänn diä im Mönsch au vorhandä wäräd bzw. nur dänn wär d'Gedankäüberträägig au gnüägänd intensiv und "schpannänd"-seensüchtig-l....voll. Möglichärwiis (zimli sichär) händ au Tiär s'Potentiaal zu schtarchär Seensucht und L.....schmärz und Gedankä- odär Gfüülsüberträägig, das chönnti, müässti bi dä Integratioon gwäärlaischtäd sii, so dass d'Kommunikatioon zwüschäd allnä Wesä gwäärlaischtäd isch.

(Gedankä vom doz_11b8-02-02, erschtmalig bzw. nur logisch bzw. 'väschpöötäd' (jetz won - wägä dä Wäbsiitä daa an Integratioon dänk fallts - natüürli uuf bzw. - wird klaar, dass für ä langi Zyt nid übär d'Gränzä vo dä baidä Prinzipiä, wänn diä Visioon übär d'Zuekunft vo dä Mönschhait vom Septämbär schtimmä söll) erschlossä: eventuell müässti abär ä Trännig uufrächt erhaltä werdä zwüschäd dä "Schwulä" und "dä Frauä" bzw. korrekt gsait zwüschäd dä am väterlichä Prinzip orientiärt L...wäsä und dä am müäterlichä Prinzip orientiertä L...wäsä; daa chönnt kai Integratioon schtattfindä bzw. ersch in fernärär Zuekunft bi dä "Zruggholig" dur di Schwulä; zu däm Theema würd au d'Reproduktioon ghöörä, wiä wird sichärgschtellt, dass di "Schwuulä" "irä Nachwuchs" in jedärä Generatioon überchömäd bzw. är inä zuegfüärt wird? das Probleem han - bis zum sibtä Oktoobär nid würkli chönä löösä bzw. äs isch - nüüt klaar gsait wordä)

Integratioon hät viär Bedüütigä in - Ideeäwält:

  • Integratioon im 'klassischä' (2010/doz_11b6) Sinn: 'technisch' väschtandäni Integratioon vo primäär biologisch 'implementiärtä' Fäikaitä
  • Integratioon (bzw. Gwäärlaischtig und Erhööig) vo Seensucht und L.... in L...wesä

gemäss Septämbär/Aafang-Oktobäär:

  • Integratioon vo Hetero-Männär und F.... in F.... (bzw. am müätärlichä Prinzip orientiärtä L...wäsä)
  • Rück-Integratioon (bzw. Widärvärainigung) vo dä am müätärlichä Prinzip orientiärtä Läbäwäsä in zimli färnär Zuekunft zu dä am väterlichä Prinzip orientiärtä L...wäsä
  • und nätüürli di mathematischi Bedüütig vom Integriärä